Ceverante

First of all, hello. I've just joined and this is my first post.

This question is geared toward the alledged existance of the Messiah Jesus Christ, the source of Christianity. I believe that there is not a single contemporary historical account of Yeshua of Nazareth. Even Paul never claim to have seen the human Jesus. There exists today nothing by him, no painting, no writing, no carpentry and no physical description of him.

Just because there are no records does not eqate that something did not happen/exist, but it's the fact that record does indeed exists, just that these existing records did not mention Jesus nor Nazareth. There are many records of Roman executing self-claimed Messiah, yet none of them mentioned the trial of Jesus Christ by Pontius Pilate, among the abundance or trial records.

There exists record of the cities of Galilee as well as contemporary maps, yet none show a Nazareth. No such town of Nazareth is mentioned in the OT, Josepehus or Talmud.

So why do some people believe that he was a real and not fictional person when all he existed was in the bible?

Most of the points are taken off another forum, re-worded.

Eldarion Lathria

People have been trained and taught to do so. Habit is a mighty empire, not easily overthrown.

Yahushua was a common name in that country. It is possible that the words of a reforming self taught rabbi got mixed in with the tales of a messianic claimant, the execution of a Jewish guerrilla, the tricks of conjurers and wizards like Appolonius of Tyana and the legends of several gods to make the Jesus legend. The same thing happened to L. Artorius Castus, one of the sources for the Arthur Legends. Legends accreted to Alexander the Great and Charlemagne, and both were unquestionably historical persons.

Eldarion Lathria

DougP

I dont believe that lack of evidence is a form of evidence. However, on that same token, there is no reason to believe something unless there is evidence. So, a lack of evidence could sway an opinion, but usually towards the negative (i.e. no jesus) rather towards the positive (jesus). However, I am getting tired and that might not make sense when I wake up in the morning. other people please critique that or correct me with something better.

-Doug

Columbus

Jesus was mentioned by contemporary historians, such as Josephus. Not as a divine personage, but as a historical figure. I don't see any reason to question the existence of Jesus as a man. I don't see any reason to believe in the legend of Jesus Christ, Son of God, either.
Jesus' ethical teachings are magnificent. Who cares whether or not Jesus was a real person? The ethical teachings are what is important in my life. Whether Jesus was a man or a fictional teacher isn't the point.


I am certain that if God Himself came down from Heaven and delivered an ethical Message, there is a special place in Hell for those who believe in His Divinity but don't practice the Ethic. In other words, most of those in hell are Christians.

Tom

DaninGraniteCity

Eusebius probably forged that paragraph in Josephus.

WCH

"Absense of evidence is evidence of absense only where one would reasonably expect to see evidence." -- that's the logical rule to follow in cases like this. Determine whether we should expect to see evidence, and then see if there is any.

Dean Anderson

Hi Ceverante, and welcome to the forum.

Discussions about the historical nature (or otherwise) of Jesus normally fare better in the Biblical Criticism & History section - so I am moving this to there.

Don't worry, you haven't done anything wrong or pissed anyone off by posting it in GRD

Sauron

This is true.

Suppose I claim to have an elephant in my living room. But all my furniture is intact, there are no holes in the floor, no creaking noises or trumpeting sounds, no mountain-sized piles of elephant dung - in short, if there is no confirmatory evidence to support my claim - then an absence of evidence is a form of evidence.

Or you could say that there existed contrary evidence which should not exist, if my claim were true. I suppose it is a matter of perspective, whether you count that as an absence of evidence, or as the presence of evidence that contradicts your claim.

In either event, this principle of contradictory evidence has shot down many biblical claims.

Sensei Meela

Agreed. In most cases, anyway; for the most part, an absence of evidence is somehing that needs explaining.

PoodleLovinPessimist

We have to distinguish between two senses of "absence of evidence".

One sense is looking around your living room and seeing no signs of an elephant. Another sense is never having looked around Pluto to see if there's a teacup orbiting it.

In one sense, we have had a definite, particular experience, even if that experience is communicated negatively: I looked and didn't see X. In the other sense, we have had no experience whatsoever.

I think it's a misnomer to call the first case "absence of evidence". We have evidence: I looked around the room and saw A, B, and C. It's evidence because the hypothesis entails that one would see ~A, ~B, and ~C. I.e. If an elephant were in my room, I would not see my furniture whole and in its accustomed position, I would not smell the fresh pine air, and I would not be able to walk around the room without slipping in shit. Simply expressing the evidence that does exist negatively (I did not see my furniture ruined, did not smell elephant or did not step in shit) does not change the fact that the evidence actually does exist and it actively contradicts the hypothesis.